Occam's Razor

[coolduude]

Hi all,

Just a quick question on the principal of Occam’s Razor. It states that “the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one.” This sure sounds correct, but how is it proved? Why is this right? What is the ‘justification’ for it?

Ask if more details are needed

Thank you!
Coolduude

 

[PatrickSebast]

It is a very basic principle that often gets taken wildly out of context and applied to things which it shouldn’t be applied.

An instance of the “Razor” at work would be if you meet a woman who says she has five children but you only see four with her. The simplest explanation is that the fifth child is simply off somewhere else at the moment. It is also possible that the woman could be refering to a child that has yet to be born and isn’t showing signs of pregnancy. Or she could be slipping in some joke about her husband being childish that she often uses around friends and simply let slip without thinking about it. Maybe one of her children died, but she still counts it anyway. Perhaps the woman is simply mentally unstable and none of the children around her even belong to her. Without any information but what the woman has told you, you simply cannot know.

In a more professional sense the principle is often used in medicine to state that it is simply more sensible to look for a single condition/disease that matches all the symptoms a patient has even though it is technically possible for the patient to be experiencing multiple conditions at once. The fact is that MOST of the time it is only one condition that is afflicting the patient and it is more efficient/effective to assume that to be the case.

If you see the statement used in an argument however it is probably being used badly. First while Occam’s Razor proves useful in most circumstances simply due to the nature of probability it is NEVER to be used as a proof because, much like a person could actually have two infectious diseases in the medical example, the simplest answer isn’t ALWAYS the solution. When you get into more complex ideas it becomes far more difficult to apply as well since the simplest solution isn’t always that obvious in such cases.

For instance while you COULD use Occam’s Razor to say “Barrack Obama is probably a natural born US citizen.” since the Republican party leaders would have been all over him if they thought they had any evidence to the contrary. The idea that he was actually born in Kenya and his citizen ship was doctored involves a lot of complex events to occur when he was a young child who would have no clue what a toilet was much less that he wanted to run for President some day. However Occam’s Razor could not be safely used to say that everything Obama says and does should be taken at face value since we start getting into an unknown world of politics where we are forced to guess at how often things are kept hidden. In this case things have gotten a bit complex and without an intimate knowledge of how the system works we are left to guess work.

 

[hatsoff]

Hi all,

Just a quick question on the principal of Occam’s Razor. It states that “the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one.” This sure sounds correct, but how is it proved? Why is this right? What is the ‘justification’ for it?

Ask if more details are needed

Thank you!
Coolduude

Occam’s razor, also called the principle of parsimony, is a rule of thumb for using intuition. We all have intuitions of simplicity in explanations, and Occam’s razor instructs us to favor the explanations we find to be simplest. Since our intuitions appear reliable only with respect to those experiences which are familiar to us (such as social dynamics), Occam’s razor is often if not consistently unhelpful in dealing with issues outside that domain. So, I don’t find it the least bit trustworthy when applied to, say, the existence of God. Even when we use it for more mundane purposes, we ought to take care, and not treat it too confidently.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hatsoff

*So, I don’t find it the least bit trustworthy when applied to, say, the existence of God. Even when we use it for more mundane purposes, we ought to take care, and not treat it too confidently. *

And William of Occam also was a Franciscan priest, so it certainly was not intended to be used to doubt God as an explanation for how the universe came to be, though that is how Bertrand Russell and others used it … to argue that the universe always existed, and that was a simpler explanation than God.

 

[tonyrey]

Since our intuitions appear reliable only with respect to those experiences which are familiar to us (such as social dynamics), Occam’s razor is often if not consistently unhelpful in dealing with issues outside that domain.

If that is the case the application of Occam’s razor to the origin of the universe is equally unhelpful. When we are out of our metaphysical depth there is no reason to multiply causes unnecessarily…

 

[pnewton]

I prefer to use the principle of Occam’s Razor when evaluating the veracity of claims made here, and else where on the internet, on politics, theology or news. There are simply too many wild claims that one can not chase them all down.

 

[tonyrey]

I prefer to use the principle of Occam’s Razor when evaluating the veracity of claims made here, and else where on the internet, on politics, theology or news. There are simply too many wild claims that one can not chase them all down.

There is also the fact that in our sophisticated society many people cannot see the wood for the trees. In their search for an explanation of reality One Supreme Being is the very last idea that would occur to them…

 

[abucs]

This thread has been very enlightening. Thanks for the posts.

 

[Spirithound]

Occam’s Razor states that “the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one.” This sure sounds correct, but how is it proved? Why is this right? What is the ‘justification’ for it?

And William of Occam also was a Franciscan priest, so it certainly was not intended to be used to doubt God as an explanation for how the universe came to be, though that is how Bertrand Russell and others used it … to argue that the universe always existed, and that was a simpler explanation than God.

It was originally written as “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. This would imply to me that its value is felt more in hypothesizing new theories than evaluating old theories. It also implies that necessary parts of the equation will not be left out.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Today’s version is KISS:

Keep It Simple Stupid

or the more polite

Keep It Short and Simple.

 

[DaveBj]

Occan’s Razor is an interesting argument, but I wouldn’t use it to split many philosophical hairs.

I remember that atheist astronomer Carl Sagan used it in Contact to argue against the existence of a Creator God, claiming that it was simpler to believe that the universe just “happened” (that’s how I remember it, without pulling the DVD out and re-watching it). But I find that his explanation left wa-a-a-ay to many questions unanswered, and that it is much simpler to believe that the universe was designed and built by an omniscient Creator.

That said, and without having done a deep study of Occam’s writings, I find it illogical to claim that because Argument A is simpler than Argument B, then A is, or even might be, preferred over B.

DaveBj

 

[tonyrey]

I remember that atheist astronomer Carl Sagan used it in Contact to argue against the existence of a Creator God, claiming that it was simpler to believe that the universe just “happened” (that’s how I remember it, without pulling the DVD out and re-watching it). But I find that his explanation left wa-a-a-ay to many questions unanswered, and that it is much simpler to believe that the universe was designed and built by an omniscient Creator.

You’re right! In addition to being inadequate a multitude of atomic particles is far less economical than One Creator.

That said, and without having done a deep study of Occam’s writings, I find it illogical to claim that because Argument A is simpler than Argument B, then A is, or even might be, preferred over B.

By itself simplicity is certainly not a **sufficient **reason but if there are alternative explanations the simplest is to be preferred unless there is a good reason to reject it.

 

[Spirithound]

I remember that atheist astronomer Carl Sagan used it in Contact to argue against the existence of a Creator God, claiming that it was simpler to believe that the universe just “happened” (that’s how I remember it, without pulling the DVD out and re-watching it). But I find that his explanation left wa-a-a-ay to many questions unanswered, and that it is much simpler to believe that the universe was designed and built by an omniscient Creator.

Aye, there’s the rub! Occam’s Razor is only useful when the theories are all otherwise satisfactory. If you do find an omniscient, omnipotent, personal Creator to answer the questions that an eternal, impersonal universe cannot, then the Creator must be your hypothesis. The Razor doesn’t even come into play.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spirithound

*It was originally written as “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. This would imply to me that its value is felt more in hypothesizing new theories than evaluating old theories. It also implies that necessary parts of the equation will not be left out. *

It can be used to reject the explanation for the universe that posits another universe being the parent of this universe. That would require positing an infinite chain of universes, each causing the other. By comparison, the creation of one universe by God is intellectually more satisfying in that it’s consistent with “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.”

Moreover, there is no empirical way to prove that our universe has been spawned by an older universe … which makes that explanation the purest type of science fiction.

 

[abucs]

Great quote from Heisenberg Charlemagne II.

Made me go looking for more.

togodandjesuschrist.tripod.com/godandthegreatestminds/nobel_prize_winners_and_god.htm

 

[Spirithound]

It can be used to reject the explanation for the universe that posits another universe being the parent of this universe. That would require positing an infinite chain of universes, each causing the other. By comparison, the creation of one universe by God is intellectually more satisfying in that it’s consistent with “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.”

Moreover, there is no empirical way to prove that our universe has been spawned by an older universe … which makes that explanation the purest type of science fiction.

Be careful about falling back on empirical proofs, as some people say that there is no empirical proof of God.

I’m not sure I agree with your application of OR. St. Thomas Aquinas shows why there cannot be an infinitely backwards-stretching sequence in his 5 proofs of God, so I would not even apply OR to that theory.